As if having to deal with the senseless slaughter of their children by someone who has easy access to high-powered military style weapons is not enough, the bereaved parents frequently have to then deal with people on the internet who will say that the whole thing did not happen and was staged by gun control groups. The gun lobby and their supporters clearly fear that so many mass shootings, especially of schoolchildren, will result in at least some action being taken and so they will unleash these conspiracy theorists who will accuse the parents of being ‘crisis actors’ and will proceed to put their names and addresses and other contact information on the internet to encourage others to target and harass these parents individually, making their lives an even greater hell than it has become. Those parents who speak out publicly against the lack of gun control, in an effort to try and prevent other parents from having to endure what they are experiencing, will be particularly targeted for this treatment.
This kind of parent harassment may have been going on for a long time but it really took off after that pathetic excuse of a human being Alex Jones promoted the hoax and crisis actor idea on his show in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. This sick mentality now seems to have spread like a virus and in the wake of all mass shootings, those it has infected spring into action to advance Jones’s despicable agenda.
It is really hard to comprehend how sick a mind must be to do such a thing. Even if they are deluded enough to believe that the whole thing was a hoax, how warped must you be, how devoted must you to be to the cause of preventing any restrictions on gun access, to spend so much time and energy harassing people whom you do not know. The word ‘ghoul’ is an accurate metaphor to describe such people.
But some parents are fighting back. On a recent episode of the radio show This American Life, they looked at two particular cases. In the first clip, they profile the parents of one victim. “Sandy and Lonnie’s daughter, Jessi [Phillips], died back in 2012, when a gunman opened fire in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. Since then, they’ve organized their whole lives to be able to reach out to other parents like themselves.”
It should be noted that:
The Phillips are actually gun owners too. They have a 12-gauge shotgun. They believe in the Second Amendment. But they’re also advocates for universal background checks, and tight regulations on the types of guns, ammunition, and accessories– like bump stocks– a person can buy.
The Phillips are retirees living in a 245 sq. ft. trailer and though having very limited means, at their own expense they travel to the scenes of other mass shootings, just to be available to the newly bereaved parents and others, to talk with whoever wants to talk, and provide comfort. In the process, they warn them to brace themselves for the harassment they might endure from the ghouls like they received. The Phillips were told to their faces by Jones that their daughter was living a life of luxury in the Bahamas and they were being paid for by the Obama administration, and they warn the newly bereaved parents to brace themselves for similar accusations.
Lonnie got into it with Jones, stood right in front of him. It looked like a shoving match was about to start, until Sandy stepped in and broke it up. I reached out to Jones through one of his lawyers, who declined to comment. The conspiracy theorists, known as truthers or hoaxers, troll families of victims on social media immediately after any mass shooting.
This can get dangerous. After the Phillips’ son gave interviews in Aurora, he got death threats and had to get the FBI involved. The man who was threatening him ended up in jail. So hoaxers are one of the things the Phillips warn parents about. They tell families to brace themselves.
In the second clip, the show told the story of Lenny Pozner, whose son Noah was murdered at Sandy Hook, just five months after the Aurora shooting. Pozner was outraged at the ghouls who emerged at Jones’s urging to argue that he never had a son and that he was an actor. He decided to take the fight to these people and has waged a determined internet war against them. As a result, he has had to endure deaths threats and had to move multiple times because he gets repeatedly doxxed. He is one of the people who is suing Jones.
So what is it that makes these ghouls act the way they do? Undoubtedly some of them are so determined to attack any attempts at gun control, so much so that they have lost all sense of reason and even basic human decency. It is clear that they realize that these mass shootings, especially of children, are spurring efforts to limit the insanely easy access to guns in the US and think that anything goes when trying to preserve access. Hence they are willing to believe anything they are told by the conspiracists that they think will further their cause.
But there is an even more cynical motive at work, if you can believe it. Some of this is due to trolls who actually think it is funny to cause mischief by spreading false information, even if it as the expense of grieving people. Hence in the wake of such tragedies we see false information rapidly spread, such as that the Uvalde shooter was a ‘transsexual leftist illegal alien’, thus seeking to blame the murders on another marginalized group, the transgender community, rather than the powerful gun lobby and their political enablers. These trolls know that brainless, conscienceless, and ethically void people like congressperson Marjorie Taylor Greene will seize on such rumors and use their media platforms to spread them as fact as part of their crusade against the transgender community.. For such trolls, it is all ‘for the lulz. and they know that the the gun nuts will defend or at least shield them from any repercussions.
These trolls think they are being ever so clever, edgy, and ironic in persuading some people to take seriously what they say. But it does not take cleverness to dupe the gullible. To do so just reveals that far from being edgy and ironic, they are merely pathetic losers who need to get a life.
This exposes them for the morons they are, before they even start acting on it. They’re ignoring the evidence of reality, established over decades, and reinforced usually at least several times a week.
Americans don’t love their children.
Not as much as they love their guns.
This is the evidence of reality, reinforced every week, sometimes every day.
The gun lovers demonstrably have nothing to fear.
It would be poetic justice if someone would dox and harass the trolls right back. (I know that is not a viable solution, but it would be satisfying.)
Do you think that showing graphic photos of gun victims’ bodies would deter the ghouls or spur them on? It’s easy to claim that a picture is photoshopped, but the rest of the public who are not ghouls would be horrified, and would tend to disbelieve the ghouls’ stories more.
Mr. Posner said that he considered showing photos of his son’s body after Sandy Hook to wake up the public as to what gun violence was, but decided not to, for a reason I can’t remember.
consciousness razor posted a you-tube link on Mano’s post about “Sensible Gun Control Laws” on June 7, comment #24, that showed a man using different ammo in an AR-15 shooting at a pork shoulder. If you look at the damage that that gun/those rounds of ammo do to the pork, you can imagine exactly what it did to elementary school children. I for one do not need to see actual photos of obliterated children.
johnson catman @#2,
Lenny Pozner did what you recommended. The episode I linked to discusses his efforts.
When veteran suicides, ordinary cold-blooded hood murders and 100,000 annual Fentanyl deaths evoke this same level of indignation, people will know that this is not just more partisan theatrics.
Plus, this kind of description does the job:
“What I did find was something no prayer will ever relieve,” Guerrero said. “Two children whose bodies had been pulverized by bullets fired at them, decapitated, whose flesh had been ripped apart. The only clue about their identities was blood-spattered cartoon clothes still clinging to them, clinging for life and finding none.”
If you just don’t believe that, you’re also buying into a conspiracy involving that pediatrician and others, which is hardly different from believing such images are photoshopped, etc.
We have other information to work with too:
I don’t buy any of the cop’s stories, including Arredondo’s — this is just a convenient article to cite, which is unfortunately written in the typical “police stenography” style of fake news. The point is that straightforward forensic evidence of bullet holes through the door and walls is not the sort of thing they’ll casually make up about these situations to justify their shitty behavior, because it can be so easily checked by so many others.
Besides, as I said on the other thread, the issue is not that people don’t believe guns are not enough of a problem to warrant more gun control measures. Most people in the country do believe that and want it, and the minority who think otherwise are irrelevant. The people who actually need convincing are Senators, not anybody else. This includes Dems who are supposedly supportive of (some) such laws but refuse to get rid of the filibuster in order to actually do that (and so many other important things). Everything else is a sideshow.
txpiper can’t stop trolling.
Vice news did a great segment on this a few years ago: The Rise of the Crisis Actor Conspiracy Movement
I understand why people like Alex Jones push conspiracies: that’s how they get money (clicks on their web sites, basically). But there is a huge hole in their conspiracies that no one talks about, and that’s the motivation of the people who are advocating for gun control in these conspiracies. Granted, a so-called “crisis actor” could get paid for their performance, but what does the payer get? If the claim of people like Jones (and the GOP in general) was true, namely that gun control doesn’t work (in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary), why would anyone bother to push gun control via a vast conspiracy? No one stands to make money by other people not selling or buying guns. Is it because they just don’t want other people to have guns? It seems that the conspiracy requires a sort of cartoon villain who just enjoys taking things away from people.
Hmm, maybe I just answered my own question, in that that’s all that’s needed to convince some people: Just pump them full of fear that a bogeyman will steal their precious. The bogeyman’s not a rational actor, he’s a cartoon villain. As long as the mark doesn’t think too deeply about the bogeyman and his motivations, you’re golden. It’s shameless and repulsive, but apparently it works.
A bit of good news: The lawsuit against Alex Jones by a group of Sandy Hook parents will go ahead, as a judge ruled yesterday that Jones can’t hide behind bankruptcy protections, as he was trying to do.
Alex Jones will spend the rest of his life struggling to hang onto some of his money. Other scammers will notice. Hopefully, hammering Jones into the floor will serve “pour encourager les autres.”
I think someone could just shoot the gasbag. Would anyone actually feel bad about it? Besides it’d all be a fake Alex Jones, right? The real one would be fine somewhere.
txpiper @6:
When veteran suicides, ordinary cold-blooded hood murders and 100,000 annual Fentanyl deaths evoke this same level of indignation, people will know that this is not just more partisan theatrics.
Really? Where were you in any of the MULTIPLE occasions where every one of those things evoked serious outrage? What did you have to say then? Were you even looking in the right direction?
Fuck off, moron.
txpiper is just another firearm fetishist arguing in bad faith. They make vague statements and demand citations and specifics from others, yet repeatedly refuse to actually state what their complaints or positions are. Moving goal posts, whataboutisms, dear muslimas, etc.
Their just another troll, and not worth engaging with, please save your energy and keyboards, folks.
“Where were you in any of the MULTIPLE occasions where every one of those things evoked serious outrage?”
Can you provide links to FTB posts that dwelled on those things?
hey, txpiper, maybe you should stop demanding others answer your questions until you answer some of the questions others have asked of you.
aside from that, fuckoff troll
#6 txpiper
Those topic are also regularly discussed at many venues. This blog pays particular attention to two of them: shootings / gun control, and opioid deaths. Yet even if Mano only ever bothered with the single topic of gun control, so what? Your dismissal is empty of reasoning.
Can you provide links to FTB posts that dwelled on those things?
Why don’t you? After all, a proper skeptic wouldn’t trust any of us, and would do their own research, so presumably you have that information at your fingertips.
Marcus Ranum,
“Why don’t you?
The evidence should actually come from the claimant. But I did do a very brief site search for the three things I mentioned. The “multiple occasions” are apparently like beneficial mutations; pretty much non-existent. I did find one of your posts about fentanyl. Didn’t Michael Jackson actually die from a propofol overdose?
Again, even if Mano only ever hit this single topic, so what? A person can talk about a narrow subject range on their blog if they like. Many people blog with single topics as their focus, such as local environmentalism, geology, abortion access, euthansia, miscarriages of justice, etc etc. The points made on their chosen topic are not invalidated by the simple fact that they focus is narrow, only a fool would dismiss a post for that reason. Are you that fool?
^ #19 txpiper
*Reads post 19*.
*Reads this bit in particular: ” The “multiple occasions” are apparently like beneficial mutations; pretty much non-existent. ”
*Looks around at a world entirely filled, literally everywhere I look, with the end result of billions of years of beneficial mutations, and in particular at a world coming out of a pandemic characterised by the way the virus kept benefiting itself by mutating, over the space of less than a couple of years.*
*Disappointedly realises that I’m going to have to get around without an ass now, as I appear to have laughed mine off.*
But I did do a very brief site search for the three things I mentioned.
In other words, you made a lame effort to pretend you were making an effort, and then gave it up. Which shows how much YOU care about any of those issues.
The “multiple occasions” are apparently like beneficial mutations; pretty much non-existent.
So you’re an evolution-denier as well as a first-half-of-the-Second-Amendment-denier. Thanks for clearing that up. You are dismissed.
Holms,
“this single topic, so what? A person can talk about a narrow subject range on their blog if they like.”
Well, of course. But my point was about selective outrage, and gun control being a political bullet point.
===
sonofrojblake,
“the end result of billions of years of beneficial mutations”
This is definitely a popular belief. But the bm list seems to be very short. And reasonable explanations for how random DNA copy errors actually accumulate to produce sophisticated bio-features are even more scarce.
You know, Bacon developed the method so people would not needlessly lose their buttocks.
The problem is that there’s a big difference between what’s reasonable (like this for example) and what you personally understand.
It seems to me that you just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. And of course a gun wouldn’t resolve anything, so I suppose you’re pretty much helpless in that respect. But clearly that doesn’t stop you from blathering about it anyway.
Ignorance is bliss for creationists!
#24 txpiper
It’s public outcry over a public health menace. The measures that would spare lives are well known, but people like you block all efforts with moronic reasoning. The point quoted is an example of such -- you think it is suspicious that there is more public outcry on this topic than on other topics. People want to address the fact that American children are vastly more likely to have their heads blown off than in any other developed nation, and you dismiss this desire because other ills do not have such clamour.
But… there will always be some issue that is wanted by the public more than others; you ‘reasoning’ is that the leading issue of the day should be ignored because ‘shouldn’t people want other important things just as much?’ There’s no logic to it whatsoever.
Did you study any biology subject?
cr,
“The problem is that there’s a big difference between what’s reasonable…”
The notion that hyper-complex, integrated, functional biological systems are the result of random DNA replication errors is not reasonable. If you truly believe that mutations produce things like this, I have some technical questions for you.
But it is. If you thought it all boils down to just “randomness,” then you don’t really get it.
There are different traits in a population, traits which are heritable as the products/outcomes/expressions of the DNA of the individuals in it, and there are pressures related to how traits affect survival and reproduction. Which part of that do you think is wrong? Do you not want to do any actual reasoning about it? Do you think no such reasoning is possible? Or what is it exactly?
You have technical questions for biologists, and I’m not one. However, I can remind you, since it’s such a common mistake with creationists, that having questions doesn’t mean you have answers.
jeezusfuckingchrist, we aren’t arguing with that stupid “tornado in a junkyard” bit about “random” again, are we? Can we just block/ban these aggressively ignorant types? Nothing productive comes of repeatedly throwing explanations and sources and citations at someone who is immune to reason.
This isn’t new, it’s literally been going on as long as the public has had access to the internet. It was already old when I got access in college in the early 90s. Hell, most of this was already old back when people communicated by postal mail. These are just trolls and griefers. They aren’t actually interested in learning anything, they are just looking to occupy your time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere. It’s possible that you can encounter someone with some mistaken beliefs/understandings in real life, or maybe other corners of the internet, who has been brought up in an aggressively ignorant educational environment, but those people aren’t just popping in to Free Thought Blogs on a random link, bristling with arguments straight out of Answers in Genesis, and JAQing off…
As to txpiper>by your reasoning, noone should play wordle, as there is only something like a ~1 in almost 12 million chance of getting the word right on any random guess, and at that rate, it would take someone close to 5,000 years, playing daily, using all guesses, to ever get a correct guess. Maybe you think it works better if you pray about it before hand or something…
#28 txpiper
You appear to be entirely unaware that selection, another component of evolution, is not random.
cr,
“There are different traits in a population, traits which are heritable as the products/outcomes/expressions of the DNA of the individuals in it, and there are pressures related to how traits affect survival and reproduction.”
This is not about Mendelian inheritance, natural selection or fitness. It is about the nature of mutations. You believe that, given enough time, a long series of errors can result in sophisticated biological specialties. There is nothing reasonable, plausible or scientific about this absurd idea. The gears in the link I provided could not possibly be an accidental outcome.
txpiper, allow me to introduce to you the concept of a ‘ratchet’.
Sure, that’s a thing I believe, roughly speaking.* What’s supposed to be wrong with that?
And hold on a second…. Do you think that it’s in the nature of mutations that things don’t change? That’s pretty weird.
It also strikes me that you keep using the word “errors,” which has a lot of connotations that are unhelpful for some people. You can think of them as just “events.” We’re talking atoms and the void here. Nobody made a mistake. It’s not tragic or humorous. Don’t picture a clown slipping on a banana peel or whatever. Think of molecules interacting.
*There’s also no Santa Claus. I know, it’s incredible.
Biologists, philosophers of biology, and basically anyone who’s not a devout fundamentalist think that you’re wrong. What do you think that you know which they don’t? Do they need to read more of the Bible or something?
We’re not talking about “an accidental outcome,” as in a single event, of course.
Leaving that aside, you claim that it’s not possible, but I don’t see a contradiction. What do you believe is inconsistent with what? Show me where you think you can derive P and not-P. Or, probably a better use of your time would be to just learn a little bit about some real science. It can be interesting sometimes.
txpiper
No, they are not errors. Errors imply design (or at the very least intention). There has never been an error in evolution only random mutations that are either beneficial or not, either enhance behaviour or not, facilitate survival or not. Those that are of most benefit to survival, along with those that impede survival the least, are passed on. Once passed on, further random mutations add to the cumulative changes.
‘Selection’ is another loaded term that implies intent. Nothing is actually ‘selected’ or chosen. It simply survives or it doesn’t.
It is really not difficult to see unless your view is through the cataract of xian creationism (or whatever your fairy tale of choice).
cr,
“you keep using the word “errors,” ”
Because mutations are copy errors. There are enzymes that function to preserve fidelity during the replication process. They check for, excise and replace errors. It is interesting to consider that those enzymes supposedly evolved to prevent the very mutations that evolution depends on.
.
“We’re not talking about “an accidental outcome,” as in a single event, of course.”
No, not as a single event. I’ve asked many people just how many generations/mutations they think would be involved in the development of any feature they care to name. Nobody will hazard a guess, and I don’t blame them. It is easier, but rather perfidious, to just say that things (like replication enzymes or ribosome) evolved.
But you can try to test the process yourself:
“Once upon a time, no insect had a gear-synchronized jumping mechanism. But a random copy error occurred in one of countless candidate germ cells during meiosis…..” and so on.
Bear in mind that every developmental step will have to become fixed in a population, which is very unlikely. And any additional random helpful DNA replication errors will also have to occur in the same gene region of another germ cell, and will have to be complementary to the previous helpful mistake, and result in more specific accidental information. Gears require lots of definition. They have to be just the right size and geometry, be precisely positioned, be made of just the right protein, and be integrated to work with neural, muscular and other systems. So, regulatory mechanisms have to develop coincidentally while the gears are coming along.
.
It is important to realize that this is supposed to have occurred countless millions of times. Corneas, bioluminescence, hearts, livers, tooth enamel, eardrums….you name it. This is how they all came about.
It is also important to notice that it doesn’t seem to be happening at all now. Everything seems to be finished.
txpiper, I feel nostalgic.
Here; inform yourself: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409/
Mass murder is the topic at hand, but sure. Very interesting, to such as you.
Must be because you are evidently so erudite on what evolutionary theory entails.
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of deep time, and of large populations.
I get you exactly. Cats aren’t giving birth to dogs, so that falsifies evolutionary theory, which predicts exactly that. Randomly, of course!
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of antibiotic resistance.
(You’ve never heard of Dr. Lenski, have you?)
—
Since we’ve gone so off-topic, and (perhaps) with Mano’s tolerance, I put it to you:
Either you imagine the way life is and ecosystems are is inexplicable, or you think there is another explanation; but evidently what you are sure of is that evolution can’t be right.
I think it’s the second case, and I think I know what that is.
(A magical being, uncreated unlike everything else)
John Morales,
“Here; inform yourself”
Thank you. The phrase “replication errors” can be found 10 times in the article you linked to.
.
“Allow me to introduce you to the concept of deep time, and of large populations.”
Neither of those concepts is involved in the supposed transition from Pakicetus to blue whales.
.
“Allow me to introduce you to the concept of antibiotic resistance. (You’ve never heard of Dr. Lenski, have you?)”
Lenski’s bacteria, after 31,500 generations, acquired a transporter that allowed it to utilize existing pathways to process citrate in oxic conditions. What else would you like to apply that speedy metric to?
txpiper, no need for thanks. I’m feeding you rope.
No need, since you clearly did not apprehend it.
But, you know, finding the phrase “replication errors” in an article titled DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation should not be such a surprise to you.
(They’re part of the mechanism, after all)
Funny you should mention that; the evolution of whales is not opaque.
(They diverged around 50M years ago, which you claim ain’t “deep time”
Among other things, yes.
Point being, you claimed “Everything seems to be finished.”.
And you claimed evolution could not be seen to happen.
(You also claimed mutations could not effect beneficial changes)
—
So, for the second time (don’t worry, I’ll keep count): is it inexplicable or is it something, where that something is not evolution? Care to commit to your sky fairy?
#36 txpiper
Here’s how I know you have no education in genetics:
…you think cell replication is the only time a mutation can occur. Teehee.